Ann Israel is the legal profession's Dear Abby. A New York legal recruiter since 1979, Ann is a past president of the National Association of Legal Search Consultants. Advice for the Lawlorn is updated every week.

Q: I am a second-year, female litigation associate at a BigLaw. During the last couple of months, I heard from two partners one male and one female, who said that I am too nice and one of whom was actually agitated that I was accommodating to opposing counsel by telling them that we would provide them with something which we had an obligation to give them.

I am worried that if I want to advance as a litigator in my firm I need stop giving off the nice girl impression.

How do I change this perception the partners I work with seem to have of me? I can be tough, but I just don't want to be confrontational, stern or mean unless I have a reason to be. I worry that this nice girl image is not going to get me very far. Please help.

Dear Tough Enough: Is it true that nice girls finish last? Well, it would appear that in your particular situation, it just might be the case.

First off, let's clarify exactly what being nice and being a litigator at the same time is all about, because you don't have to be a complete wild person to be successful in the courtroom.

When I think of a successful litigator, the first person who comes to my mind is Floyd Abrams at Cahill. Here is someone who is the very essence of a professional and a gentleman and yet he is the consummate litigator.

Read about his career and you will know that Abrams never hesitated to give opposing counsel something he was obligated to give to them. There is no question that he is as tough as they come, but I suspect there is no one kinder or more understanding than Abrams. As the saying goes,

Ask someone to name a First Amendment lawyer.
If they answer, one-hundred percent of the time the answer will be the same: Floyd Abrams.
Then ask them to name another such lawyer.
The answer: silence.

As I continue to come up with the names of litigators I think of as great, the people who come to mind are men and women who are gracious and kind and professional -- and none of them are off the wall nuts or crazed. I think of the old school litigators such as Louis Nizer; a famous litigator known the world over but who was known as a gentleman first and foremost. Of course, Nizer is long-gone but his legacy lives on.

I think of , who is tough, but always fair, and respected by everyone that appears before him; when he was head of litigation at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, he set an example of professionalism for his entire department to follow.

I think of Kevin Walsh at Dewey & LeBoeuf who slays his opposing counsel with words, but always in a calm and deliberate manner.

My thoughts always come around to Harvey Feuerstein of Herrick Feinstein and his Solomon-like wisdom and advice that he brings to the litigation table. I can't imagine Feuerstein ever advising a young associate to act any way but as a professional.

I could go on with my list forever because I have been blessed in my career with meeting some of the nicest litigators one could ever hope to meet. And not only are they the nicest people, they are the toughest, strongest, brightest and best litigators ever to enter a courtroom.

So, it makes me wonder what those two partners at your BigLaw firm were trying to say to you. Either you are at a lousy place to work or else something is wrong with how you are coming across in your delivery.

I find it very hard to believe that a partner was upset with you because you were providing something to opposing counsel that you were obligated to provide. This just doesn't make any sense to me. If you didn't provide it, what would have happened to your case? Something else must have happened here and I think you need to go over some other facts because you have two separate partners complaining to you about the same issue: you are too "nice."

I can't believe that they expect you to be a raging maniac -- that just doesn't make sense to me. Very few litigators behave that way and get away with it. Yes, there certainly are a few that are famous for that type of behavior, and some are truly great litigators -- but those are few and far between. And very few start out as second-year associates.

Please review your demeanor ... if you are timid and soft-spoken then you may very well not be cut out to be a litigator. Perhaps that is what these two partners were trying to get across to you when they were telling you that you were too nice.

Do you believe that you have the right temperament and personality to be a litigator? It doesn't mean that you have to be confrontational or stern or mean; it just means that you have to possess the personality traits that will allow you to stand up to different types of opposing counsel and be able to win your case.

A strong ego drive -- the need to win -- is necessary to be a good litigator. Do you possess that type of characteristic? Or are you too nice? And that could be precisely what those two partners were referring to ... or they could just be total jerks and this New Year is the perfect time for you to spruce up your resume and start looking for a new firm, where the partners are as nice as you are!

You need to make that decision ... best wishes and happy New Year to all!

Sincerely,

Ann M. Israel
President, Ann Israel & Associates